Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: "Doruk (0sec)" <doruk@0sec.ai>
Cc: david@ixit.cz, oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	david.laight.linux@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] nfc: llcp: bound the remaining LLCP TLV parsers to their buffers
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 16:34:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260713153434.GI1364329@horms.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPdMp1omRz=vFN=CQsiXDbf+5W3SF-F8BGm3HuNeLpp1uS4UUw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 03:42:10PM +0200, Doruk (0sec) wrote:
> > Would it make sense to either guard skb->len >= LLCP_HEADER_SIZE
> > before the two call sites, or take the same skb_tail_pointer() based
> > approach used in nfc_llcp_connect_sn()?
> 
> Thanks for the review Simon! I went with the first option in a separate patch,
> since I believe the missing minimum-length check affects every PDU type the
> dispatcher hands off, not just CONNECT/CC:
> 
> [PATCH net] nfc: llcp: guard against short PDUs in nfc_llcp_rx_skb()
> 
> It adds "if (skb->len < LLCP_HEADER_SIZE) return;" at the top of
> nfc_llcp_rx_skb(), so no handler can see a sub-header PDU and the
> "skb->len - LLCP_HEADER_SIZE" subtraction can no longer wrap. With that
> in place the connection-TLV parser's bound is safe. Happy to respin
> either patch if you'd prefer both changes squashed into one.

Thanks, a separate patch sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

...

      reply	other threads:[~2026-07-13 15:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-05 11:56 [PATCH net] nfc: llcp: bound the remaining LLCP TLV parsers to their buffers Doruk Tan Ozturk
2026-07-10 13:48 ` Simon Horman
2026-07-11 13:42   ` Doruk (0sec)
2026-07-13 15:34     ` Simon Horman [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260713153434.GI1364329@horms.kernel.org \
    --to=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=david@ixit.cz \
    --cc=doruk@0sec.ai \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oe-linux-nfc@lists.linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox